Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:47:34 +0300 From: Alexander Churanov <alexanderchuranov@gmail.com> To: Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com> Cc: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fresh devel/boost Message-ID: <3cb459ed0903061347w599c521ex34267fd168882cac@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3c0b01820903020819s65adc166qd0d707ce8820b3b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <49ABED6D.8080909@icyb.net.ua> <3c0b01820903020819s65adc166qd0d707ce8820b3b9@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi guys! I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for several weeks :-). Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that! For current status, current efforts and decisions see http://wiki.freebsd.org/BoostPortingProject. My comments on the suggested solution: The goal is to have most recent boost by default in devel/boost. Of course, it is possible to provide 1.38 in some separate location. However, this would make ports look like we stuck to 1.34 forever and provide recent boost libraries for hackers. The better approach is to provide 1.34 in a separate location and modify all ports that depend on old boost to use that location. The hard part of it is "modify all ports". It's not obvious for me what's easier: to modify all ports (source code) to work with 1.38 or to modify all ports (build files) to look for 1.34 in some special place. Having multiple versions of the same ports installed at the same time is nice idea, it needs more time to think and experiment with. For instance, I'd like to examine how Gentoo does that and learn their's procs and cons. I'd be glad to see FreeBSD capable of doing that for any arbitrary port. Alexander Churanov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3cb459ed0903061347w599c521ex34267fd168882cac>